After the alleged April 7 incident in Douma, Western nations pushed a UN Security Council resolution blaming Syria. Russia vetoed this, arguing that there should be an investigation first. Western nations rejected Russia’s alternate proposal. On April 13, the US, Britain, and France attacked Syria, despite the lack of investigation into the incident.

Those nations are still looking for a UN measure assigning blame to Syria, however. The plan is to use a “uniting for peace” tactic, as used in 1950 at the start of the Korean War. In that case, nations declared the Security Council unable to “act as required,” and referred the matter to the UN General Assembly. In that case, it established a UN force sent to South Korea, dramatically escalating the war.

In the current case, it’s not clear exactly what would be proposed beyond blaming Syria without investigation and doing something to them. The UN General Assembly resolution would require two-thirds majority.

Though some UN officials cite the disastrous 1950 example as a “mechanism” for overriding Security Council vetoes, it has not been used since.

More power politics….. I’m sure this “switch UN authorities” tactic would bave been used in Iraq for example, if it was so easy to do… More bad bets by bankrupt “empire”…. Wake up its lost.. These proxy forces are no match for Russia,Turkey & Assad….. Not to mention even trying it could cause new & worse problems. Quit while you are behind in the mess to avoid being forced under it..

Although Russia vetoing a resolution blaming Syria without an investigation is appropriate. Whereas vetoing any investigation into why unarmed people were shot in the back in Gaza is sickening. It pays to be exceptional and chosen.

If the US starts that process, it could easily run out of control. In particular, it could condemn Israel, support Palestinians, and condemn US wars in the middle east starting with Iraq. They can write the resolution, and re-write it, and once it is started on the Middle East for Syria it could consider all of the middle east issues connected.

Like the calling of a Constitutional Convention, once started it can run off on its own.

Of course they would. The US has long been unable or unwilling (expedience) to not look at the long view. Thus, unintended consequences and rogue conflicts are the norm when the US comes with a “plan.”

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that once the US launches into the General Assembly with a Uniting for Peace resolution to bypass the Security Council, then it might well lose control of the process of considering and amending that resolution. The resolution would take on a life of its own in the General Assembly, just like a Constitutional Convention once launched can go off in unexpected directions.

The General Assembly starting with a resolution on Syria could consider peace in the middle east to be the real subject, and address more than just those particular interests in Syria which the US desires to focus upon.

The General Assembly has done things like this rather often, quite hostile to the interests that the US defends with constant use of its veto power. Once again should be an expected development, not a surprise.

Actually, I would welcome that, but it is in practice a reason why the US would not dare start the Uniting for Peace process on a middle east resolution.

When decisions are made by the UNGA, mostly they do tend to support the “good guys”, not the USA . Every year nearly every nation votes to remove the blockade of Cuba. Of course the General Assembly is ignored.